THE ARGUMENTS

ANIMAL RIGHTS AND PETS

Animal rights activists had concentrated on cruelty against test animals in pharmaceutical industry and on poor conditions of animals in factory farms, but we in the Pet Liberation front claim, that also keeping of pets is against animal rights. It is clear, that pets don’t suffer so dramatically as guinea pigs in laboratories, but one cannot deny, that pets do not live in freedom, they do not live according their natural inborn instincts an inherently social animals are not allowed to live with fellow animals of the same species.

A Man who beats his wife cannot justify his behavior by comparing it to the Nazi genocide of Jews during the Second World War. This same rule of moral justice concerns also the pet keeping. Even tough in fur farms and test laboratories animals are treated with cruelty, this does not justify the slavery of pets. If keeping a pet causes to animals comparatively mild suffering (compared with an animal living free in the nature) so in that case having a pet is unethical and against animal rights.

Many dogs look funny because some selfish person had caught a thought: "Let’s make a funny looking dog", and he had started to improve the breed. But he hardly improved the breed. On the contrary: some pedigreed dogs have respiratory difficulties as a result of excessive "improving " of breed. We do not claim, that it is wrong to be sick or disabled, but we question the right to cause congenital disorders causing lifelong

suffering to an animal only as a result of a man playing with physical properties of another species.

As a result of human "improving" of breed dogs have about 300 inborn illnesses or disorders. An ethical problem is now that, that nearly every dog carries the burden of human "improving" the breed and you can’t buy a dog without these burdens. If you buy a dog, you will be part of this queer pedigree-business and you are supporting it. Of course you could avoid this problem by buying a dog witch is almost a descendant of a wolf, but then you would bee taking a wild animal as a pet and this is off course wrong.

The man has improved the breed of dogs and made them look sometimes very different of their ancestors – the wolves. But even their outlooks have changed, have their "psychological" innate structure changed accordingly. The answer is now, and a dog is still mostly a wolf, and the instincts of wolves’ have not dead in our companions. The representatives of kennel-business claim, that the wild, wolf-like instincts had diminished in domestic wolves or dogs, and that they are completely accustomed to live in the human environment. These claims are analogues to those presented by industrial farmers, who claim, that the breeds are so "improved" that they are completely accustomed to live in their farms. In Finland fur-farmers claim that they have in few generations improved a breed of foxes, that is completely adapted to live in little cages. In every animal there is inside a wild animal and this wild animal needs certain kind of environment to keep happy. The psychic structure of an animal is developed in the wild nature and its activity is at its best in the nature. People had changed a little of this hereditary psychic system in the process of domestication, but how much – no one can give an accurate answer , not even M.W. Fox. The change of outlook can be misleading. It is easier to think that white rats or rabbits are less wild than colored ones and more adapted to live as pets in small cages. A dog looking very much as a wolf can arouse questions how it can adapt to live in an urban city, but a poodle do not rise questions. One phenomenon is the pet-owners tendency to project her inner feelings to animals. When a dog owner watches her dog with tender feelings of love and warmth, he thinks that the animal is feeling the same feelings. And when a dog-owner sees her pet running around, he thinks, that his companion is eager and enthusiastic, when an objective observer would say, that the dog is confused and afraid in a strange, uncontrollable situation. We know, that there are quacks that call themselves dog psychologists, but it is very difficult or impossible to say anything about dog's psychic health. One can also claim, that all dogs in human care suffer of

constant mild depression and of constant schizophrenia-like confusion-anxiety caused by too complicated and unnatural environment.

You can love your pet and at the same time oppress it. Sexists have oppressed women and at the same time they have loved them. Sheik Al qhad , who has thirty wives kept behind the locks and bars in his harem, said in an interview about his wives: "They are completely happy because I treat them good and love them all."

Dogs and wolves are an example of social animals that live in packs. When dogs are living with humans, they think that humans are other dogs or wolves. But can a human being fulfill the dog's social needs. We think that a human cannot be as good social companion to a dog as another dog is. This is clearly to be seen, when a dog in leash meets another dog. They have common smells, innate instincts and much more common with each other than with humans. If dogs had a free choice, they would rather spend their time with another dogs rather than with humans. But the animal-exploiter don’t give him this freedom of choice and pull the leash and compels the animal to live with him.

Many animal right activists do not keep pets, because a pet is like a slave. Today it is impossible to think of selling and buying people of African origin or women or keeping they in leash, but it is still possible to exploit these way animals. Pet business is a great source of money in modern society. Billions of dollars are made selling animal foods and equipment every year. Billions are also spent to advertising these merchandises. So the media and newspapers are dependent of pet-business and they have to give an idyllic picture of pets because they had to please advertisers. Newspapers do not for example publish stories about disturbed dogs attacking children or passers by. These attacks are very common in real life due to mental disturbances in dogs. Pet-business does not want to reveal the real-life misery of animals in human care.

Because it is oppression of animals to own animals you should denounce your ownership. If the officials send you documents, where you are marked as a pet-owner, you should ask a correction. You should declare that you are only caretaker of the animal. If you need, defend your opinions at court.

In pet liberation it is important, that we crush the idyllic picture of happy pet keeping and that we question the right of the man to keep companion animals, question the right to rob the freedom and natural surroundings of animals. We believe, that if people begin to think more closely their moral rights concerning pets, they gradually begin to see moral dilemmas of pet keeping. Our final aim is, that people will give up all pet keeping. Our aim is of course not, that people sill put their pets in sleep, but that they refuse to take new pets. But this is not our only goal, there is also subgoals. These could be for example: Prohibition to improving the breed when improving causes suffering to the animal. Prohibition to keep dogs in too small apartments. Prohibitions to leave social animals alone (e.g. dog should be taken to doggarten or dog-daycenter while the caretaker is at work). Campaigns to rehabilitate birds, turtles, snakes etc. in the wild nature should be started. Animals that have difficulties to cope in nature could be set in special reservations, where they are fed. The tasks are enormous, pet-business big and wealthy opponent, but the fight has started.